ALL CREDIT: Patel Patriot
Notes
If you haven’t read the first eight parts of the Devolution series, please do so now here:
My original plan for Devolution - Part 13 was an article to serve as a continuation of Devolution - Part 12. I am still working on piecing together the aspects of that article but I felt it was necessary to put that work on hold and put forth this article instead.
This article will outline one of Trump’s key executive orders that I truly believe spells out that we are no doubt in the middle of some sort of Continuity of Government plan that I believe to be a plan of devolution. I briefly touched on this executive order in Devolution - Part 3, but it deserves its own article and detailed breakdown.
I’ve said many times throughout my series that we need to start thinking bigger. I always thought I was thinking bigger but researching for this article led me to the realization I was wrong. I’ve spent a majority of my series focused on the Department of Defense and the military, and they still are very important to what is unfolding, but devolution is much bigger than just the DoD and the military. Just how much bigger?
Let’s find out.
The Executive Order
Governance and Integration of Federal Mission Resilience
On December 7th, 2020, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13961: Governance and Integration of Federal Mission Resilience (FMR EO). This Executive Order was released simultaneously with the Federal Mission Resilience Strategy 2020 (Strategy). I believe that by the end of this article, you will see that between the FMR EO and the Strategy, the entire framework for devolution has been sitting in the federal register for everybody to see since December 7th, 2020.
Allow me to prove it to you:
This executive order begins by telling us under what authority Trump has issued it. In addition to the Constitution and laws of the United States, the National Security Act of 1947 is mentioned specifically. The National Security Act of 1947 is found in Chapter 44 of United States Code, Title 50 - War and National Defense.
In the very first paragraph, we are made aware of the context that this EO is being issued in. Throughout the entire FMR EO, the phrase “natural disaster” is never mentioned, yet the context of “War and National Defense” is immediately clarified. This is very important. The entire basis for this EO is discussing continuity of government during war and you will see more proof of this as we continue.
Presidential Policy Directive-40 (PPD-40) is a classified directive that was issued by Barack Obama. Here is some further background:
PPD-40 itself is still classified. As such, we have no way of figuring out the full specifics within that document, but we are still able to learn a few important things about it from documents put forth by FEMA through Federal Continuity Directive 1 & Federal Continuity Directive 2. Both were created based on what is in PPD-40.
Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD-1) - Establishes the framework, requirements, and processes to support the development of executive department and agencies continuity programs by specifying and defining elements of a continuity plan.
Federal Continuity Directive 2 (FCD-2) - This directive implements the requirements of FCD-1 and provides direction and guidance to all departments and agencies.
The Federal Continuity Directive create the framework for implementation for all continuity programs for the executive branch. FCD-1 even has an entire annex dedicated to Devolution:
The above annex tells us that the focus of any continuity of government operation is to sustain the performance of National Essential Functions. The FCDs also define and list exactly what those National Essential Functions are:
So, let’s breakdown what’s already been established just by the end of the very first section of the FMR EO:
On December 7th, 2020, Trump issued the FMR EO using Presidential powers based in the context of War & National Defense
The Section 1 of the FMR EO explains that it is the policy of the United States to perform the NEFs as defined by PPD-40, in a continuity environment, regardless of threat or condition.
The Federal Continuity Directives gave us those NEFs
Back to the executive order:
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, Trump released this Executive Order in conjunction with the Federal Mission Resilience Strategy (Strategy). I will cover the Strategy in detail in the second part of this article but the whole purpose of the Executive Order and the Strategy is to “increase the resilience of the executive branch.” To “ensure the continuity of operations, continuity of government, and enduring constitutional government.”
This section indicates a clear goal of moving from a reactive posture to a proactive posture when it comes to continuity of government and maintaining the NEFs. What I find most interesting here is what’s required to make such a transition. In order to shift into a proactive posture, you must specifically know, or at least strongly suspect, exactly what might be coming to cause a disruption.
I was a baseball player so forgive me for this imperfect metaphor. Hitting a baseball is not easy, especially if the pitcher has multiple different pitches to choose from (fastball, curveball, slider, etc.) If you don’t know what type of pitch is coming your way as a hitter, you are in a reactive posture. You’re left guessing. However, if you know your pitchers well enough, you can anticipate exactly which balls might be thrown your way, allowing you to hit way more home-runs.
The FMR EO and the Strategy consistently mention trying to get to a proactive posture regarding continuity. To me, that means they already have a pretty clear idea of what “pitch” is coming their way. Trump and those planning the devolution operation knew that the political establishment was going to follow through with stealing the election and as we get further along, you’ll see that the FMR EO and Strategy was Trump’s direct response.
Federal Mission Resilience Executive Committee
Section 3 of the FMR EO established an Executive Committee:
Let’s look at who each member of the Executive Committee would have been at the time of this executive order. This Executive Committee will be implementing the Strategy with a goal of ensuring “the continuity of operations, continuity of government, and enduring constitutional government.” These are the brains behind devolution, and consist of some very important names.
Members of the Executive Committee
Secretary of Defense: Christopher Miller
Secretary of Homeland Security: Chad Wolf
Director of National Intelligence: John Ratcliffe
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) - Also known as National Security
Advisor: Robert O’Brien
Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations: Tony Ornato
Director of the Office of Management and Budget: Russell Vought
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy: Kevin Droegemeir - Kevin would only attend when issues concerning science and technology, including communications technology are on the agenda. I’m including him here because he plays a major role in the execution of the FMR EO and therefore plays a major role in devolution. We’ll go over that in detail later on.
Executive Committee Responsibilities
Here we get to see what the FMR Executive Committee will actually be doing and it’s very important to understand this.
This means that the FMR Executive Committee would be the group responsible for not only developing a plan of continuity but also facilitating the execution of that plan of continuity. It allows the Executive Committee to establish subordinate groups responsible for operating and implementing that continuity plan in support of the FMR Executive Committee. Finally, it allows them the flexibility to create their own “interagency framework” to assess and essentially re-prioritize the NEFs based on the continuity environment. We’ll discuss this in detail later.
Implementation
This section is important because not only does it outline how the continuity plan would be implemented but it also gives us a look at an under-the-radar yet key player in the devolution process. That key player is Mark Meadows. Meadows may not be on the Executive Committee, but he clearly plays an important role in facilitating and implementing the FMR EO and Strategy.
If you go back and watch Donald Trump’s final speech before “leaving” the Presidency from Joint Base Andrews on Jan 20th, 2021, you’ll notice that Meadows was the only member of the FMR Executive Committee to see him off on January 20th. Read the transcript of his speech and you’ll see Meadows is actually the only member of Trump’s entire cabinet that was publicly acknowledged. I think that is significant because this Executive Order has established Meadows as the back channel to President Donald Trump.
Knowing that makes this story from early August much more intriguing:
Let’s briefly review what we just went over to make sure we understand the importance of what we have covered so far. This Executive Order stemming from Trump’s war powers is outlining the implementation and execution of a continuity plan. It describes to us the Executive Committee who is responsible for implementing and executing that plan. It also tells us there are subordinate bodies and working groups involved in supporting the Executive Committee and their work in implementing and executing that plan. It also tells us exactly who would serve as the back-channel to the President for this plan.
Let’s continue with the EO:
So the APNSA (AKA National Security Advisor), which would be Robert O’Brien, is designated as the new National Continuity Coordinator (NCC) which would make sense since he is the Chair of the FMR Executive Committee and that Committee is responsible for implementing and executing a continuity plan. But it also states it could be “his or her designee.” As crazy as this sounds, literally anybody could be the NCC. Whether the NCC is Robert O’Brien or somebody he designated, it’s becoming clear O’Brien plays a major role in devolution and Trump’s battle against the political establishment.
Here is an article from NPR from January of 2020:
Then there is this RedState article from Feb of 2020.
Remember this from Devolution - Part 1?
Interesting, isn’t it? At around the same time as the military was preparing plans for continuity of government, Trump and the head of the NSC were in the process of “streamlining the team” at the NSC by removing those that NPR had mockingly characterized as “the deep state.” Gaslight much?
In order for devolution to work effectively, having the right people in place is a necessity as is making every effort to minimize the chance of any leaks or resistance as the plan is set in motion. There were clearly necessary steps being taken to remove known leakers and those likely to interfere. We will touch on the NSC again later on because they actually played an important role in the creation of the FMR Executive Order and the Strategy.
Let’s do another recap quick:
On December 7th, 2020, Trump issued the FMR EO using his Presidential powers based in the context of War & National Defense.
The FMR EO explains that it is the policy of the United States to perform the NEFs as defined by PPD-40, in a continuity environment, regardless of threat or condition.
The Federal Continuity Directives gave us those NEFs.
The FMR EO explains the switch from a reactive posture to a proactive posture when it comes to continuity planning, making it seem like they may have know what was coming.
The FMR EO established an Executive Committee to implement and execute a continuity plan.
The FMR EO has detailed the roles of the Executive Committee and established that the Executive Committee could establish subordinate bodies and working groups to support their work in implementing and executing the continuity plan.
The FMR EO detailed the back channel to the President: Mark Meadows.
The FMR EO showed us who the new NCC is: Robert O’Brien.
Now let’s discuss an one of the most important aspects of any top-secret plan Secure communications?
Secure Communications
This is where things start to get even more interesting.
So the FMR Executive Order is amending sections of Executive Order 13618 which was issued by Obama. In order to understand the significance of these amendments, we need to fully understand what Executive Order 13618 entails so we know what is actually being amended. Here is a fantastic summary of EO 13618 from the Congressional Research Service:
The aspect to focus on here is that during national security and emergency situations, such as those that would cause a continuity of government situation, there were numerous entities involved in carrying out the responsibilities for secure communication.
Executive Order 13618 essentially provided for every single agency in our government to play a role in secure communication during emergency situations. 13618 even goes on to say “All agencies”:
Now that we know Executive Order 13618 is all about, let’s look at how it was actually amended by the FMR Executive Order.
Amended by Trump’s FMR EO Section 6:
The difference here is important. Instead of using an interagency policy process to make recommendations to the President with respect to the use of authorities assigned to the President under the Communications Act of 1934, the FMR EO set things up to outright delegate the President’s authority to the Director of the OSTP “if the President takes the actions, including issuing any necessary proclamations and findings, required by that section to invoke those authorities.”
Let’s look at the Communications Act of 1934 “as amended (47 U.S.C. 606(a), and (c) through (e))” and figure out what authorities they are even talking about. It should be noted that the title of the entire section in our united states code is “War powers of the President.” Here is the full text of those authorities but I will a screenshot of the summary:
It could just be a coincidence but I think this is worth examining regardless. Look at the language being used in Trump’s FMR Executive Order:
“…if the President takes the actions, including issuing any necessary proclamations and findings, required by that section to invoke those authorities.”
Now notice the language used from the text of the Communications Act of 1934:
“During the continuance of a war in which the United States is engaged…” & “Upon proclamation by the President that there exists war or a threat of war…” & “Upon proclamation by the President that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.”
This executive order is once again referencing the war powers of the President. As I’ve said so many times before, we are in a state of war and this FMR Executive Order has alluded to that fact multiple times now. If Trump has used PEADs to proclaim a state of war, the FMR Executive Order triggers the delegation of authority to take over priority communications, suspend or amend rules relating to certain emission stations or devices, suspend rules and regulations regarding wire communications, close any facilities deemed necessary, and/or have the government take over the use of any such facility, station, or apparatus as described. They would have the legal authority to essentially take over any and all forms of communications required.
If President Trump and his FMR Executive Committee were going to implement a continuity of government plan like devolution, they would need to be able to securely communicate as the operation unfolds. The first step he took to ensure they had proper communication was to delegate his authority to direct such use of the secure communications networks.
Now lets look at one more thing from the FMR Executive Order that really shows the true genius of Trump and those involved in the devolution plan regarding secure communications.
Here is the very next section of the FMR EO:
So the FMR EO revoked section 3 of Obama’s EO 13618. Here is that Section 3 that was revoked:
Not only did this executive order delegate authority to prioritize defense and security communications, but it also consolidated involvement away from all those extra agencies and placed it solely within the Federal Mission Resilience Executive Committee. So the same Committee that is implementing and executing the devolution plan has the sole authority, access, and responsibility to perform the National Security and Emergency Preparedness communications.
Obama’s EO 13618 created a process for emergency communication involving all sorts of red-tape through deep state agencies and Trump shred that order to pieces and consolidated it into the hands of those implementing and executing the devolution plan.
I know this has been a lot to take in already so let’s do another recap before diving into the strategy:
On December 7th, 2020, Trump issued the FMR EO using his Presidential powers based in the context of War & National Defense.
The FMR EO explains that it is the policy of the United States to perform the NEFs as defined by PPD-40, in a continuity environment, regardless of threat or condition.
The Federal Continuity Directives gave us those NEFs.
The FMR EO explains the switch from a reactive posture to a proactive posture when it comes to continuity planning, making it seem likely those involved would have known what was coming.
The FMR EO established an Executive Committee to implement and execute a continuity plan.
The FMR EO has detailed the roles of the Executive Committee and established that the Executive Committee should establish subordinate bodies and working groups to support their work in implementing the continuity plan.
The FMR EO detailed the back channel to the President: Mark Meadows.
The FMR EO showed us who the new NCC is: Robert O’Brien.
The FMR EO outlined the delegation of legal authority to use secure communications during a continuity event if the President had proclaimed a state of war.
The FMR EO consolidated responsibilities for secure communications away from every agency and into the FMR Executive Committee.
Everything I’ve seen from the FMR EO tells me this is their devolution plan.
The Strategy
Federal Mission Resilience Strategy - Introduction
Now let’s take a look at the Federal Mission Resilience Strategy that was released in conjunction with the FMR EO. As I stated, the FMR EO established the framework for implementing and executing a continuity plan. The finer details of that plan are found in the Strategy.
We will first look at the introduction letter from Donald Trump himself:
This entire introduction is Trump’s way of telling us what he was about to do. Remember that this happened after the election was stolen from Trump. He was supposedly an outgoing President. Why would he even bother with some sort of continuity plan and strategy at this point of his Presidency unless there was something meaningful he was going to use it for. That alone is proof that devolution is real. It doesn’t make sense for him to issue the FMR EO and the Strategy this late in the game unless they were going to use it. Trump is telling us that they are implementing the proper “National Continuity Policy” to fight back against those who seek to destroy our country. Trump is telling us he is implementing devolution. It’s all here.
There is one quote from that introduction that I would like you to keep in the back of your mind: “The government and private sector must work together to reduce vulnerabilities and design infrastructure that addresses preparedness and resilience from the start.” You will see at the end why I mention that.
Let’s dig in:
Executive Summary & the NSC
This is a very interesting revelation and it comes 1 paragraph into the executive summary. “The Strategy was developed in response to direction from the National Security Council Principals Committee.” Time for a mini dive into what Trump did with the NSC and who is on the NSC Principals Committee.
On April 4th, 2017, President Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum - 4. This memo laid out how Trump would implement his national security policy and decision making during his presidency. Here is a good summary from the memo:
Here again we have mention of the National Security Act of 1947. As previously mentioned, the National Security Act of 1947 is found in Chapter 44 of United States Code, Title 50 - War and National Defense. The entire purpose of the NSC is to advise the President on matters relating to domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. Keep in mind what we have already discussed regarding the NSC and how Trump and Robert O’Brien appeared to be cleaning out the “deep state” from the NSC in February of 2020.
The Strategy was developed in response to direction from the NSC Principals Committee, so let’s find out who that is:
To clarify what is happening here, the Strategy and the FMR EO simultaneously issued created the entire framework needed for devolution, and were developed in response to direction from the NSC’s Principals Committee. That committee is a “Cabinet-level senior interagency forum for considering policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States.” (Emphasis mine)
Not only did Trump draw on his authority from the National Security Act of 1947 (War & National Defense) to issue the EO and Strategy, but he did so based on the direction from the highest-level policy making group regarding national security interests for the United States.
I know I keep repeating this, but only because it bears repeating:
Everything we are seeing points to a military operation in the form of a continuity of government plan, and that plan is specifically written to ensure the resilience of the executive branch in a national security crisis…specifically, a wartime situation.
Let’s look a little closer at who was part of the NSC Principals Committee at the time the FMR EO was issued. This list comes from National Security Presidential Memorandum - 4. There are some individuals who may at times attend the meetings but I am only going to list those designated as “regular attendees.” The ones in bold are also members of the FMR Executive Committee that we discussed above.
National Security Advisor - Robert O’Brien - Chair of Committee
Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo
Secretary of the Treasury - Steve Mnuchin
Secretary of Defense - Christopher Miller
Attorney General - William Barr
Secretary of Energy - Dan Brouillette
Secretary of Homeland Security - Chad Wolf
Chief of Staff to the President - Mark Meadows
Director of National Intelligence - John Ratcliffe
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Mark Milley
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - Gina Haspel
Homeland Security Advisor - Julia Nesheiwat
Representative of the U.S. to the United Nations - Kelly Craft
So, if we assume that the FMR EO and the Strategy are the framework of devolution, then the committee and the members listed above (at minimum) were the ones who provided the direction leading to the execution of devolution.
What that means to me is that I cannot write off anybody on this list as being a “black hat.” The FMR EO and Strategy clearly lays out the implementation and execution of a continuity of government plan and this group set the entire thing in motion so we cannot definitively conclude any are “black hats.”
It’s also interesting to me that the four members from the NSC Principals Committee that are also on the FMR Executive Committee all have roles having to do with either war, national security, or intelligence.
Let’s continue on with some of the Strategy:
This section has some great information. Not only does it specifically mention the word “devolution,” but it tells us that each of the Federal executive branch Principals are to increase their capability and capacity to continuously perform essential functions and that they may not have any notice in doing so.
Their focus is to use a holistic risk management approach and continuity principles relating to the NEFs. This means in using their continuity plan, they will not be able to focus on any individual NEF but rather they would look at the “bigger picture” and manage the risk across a broad framework.
This is a critically important part. Remember what devolution truly means. They let the Biden administration assume office, by doing so, they did risk losing total control of every possible “node” and that requires them to be flexible yet prepared as to not let any of their prioritized NEFs fail.
It also echoes the same focus on a reactive vs. proactive posture that we first heard in the FMR EO, This time prioritizing a “proactive posture of distribution” over a “reactive relocation of personnel.” We see that mentioned again in the very next section:
The FMR EO mentioned subordinate bodies and working groups that would support the FMR Executive Committee in the implementation and execution of the continuity plan. The picture that I’m starting to see forming is that the framework for devolution that we find throughout the FMR EO and the Strategy was to have working groups ready with the capability and capacity of performing essential functions once the plan was initiated.
If you don’t quite see that picture forming yet, you will as we continue.
Strategic Context
Again, in the Strategic Context section we see a move toward a proactive posture, this time relating to the performance of essential functions during “disruptive incidents” and while essentially spelling out what those “disruptive incidents” might be. Critical infrastructure and its vulnerability to kinetic and non-kinetic attacks or disruptions that could prevent the ability to preserve our form of government.
We already know that election infrastructure is classified as critical infrastructure. We also know that there was foreign interference in our elections based on comments Trump has made. So think about what interference in our election infrastructure and the theft of an election results in. It leads to everything we are seeing playing out today. The stolen election has prevented the ability to preserve our form of government and so much more.
Another important statement from above is this one:
“We must take full advantage of existing authorities related to risk and preparedness Frameworks. We cannot allow the successes of our past to preclude implementation of innovative approaches to address current threats.”
I’ve said before that if you understand who Donald Trump is as a person and who he was as a President in his first term, then nothing makes sense about him walking away from an obviously stolen election. If he knew there was going to be fraud, then Donald Trump would have been derelict in his duties as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our armed forces to let them get away with it. I think that statement tells us that President Trump didn’t let them get away with it. He took full advantage of his authorities (War Powers & PEADs) related to risk and preparedness frameworks (Continuity of Government). I believe the FMR EO and the Strategy are the innovative approach mentioned and I’ll show you soon what I think that approach is exactly.
The Planning Model
The planning model is another part of the Strategy the mentions the shift from a reactive posture to a more proactive one and even describes it as a cultural shift. Rather than continuity being an over-complicated afterthought set up for failure when it’s truly needed, continuity through this Strategy would become prioritized and ready for a seamless transition to operating the prioritized NEFs without interruption.
The Strategy explicitly states that it “requires the Federal executive branch to logically distribute risk to the performance of essential functions” and that this “distributed system will need technology and communications infrastructure to enable secure and reliable communications.” This could be referencing the secure communications from the FMR EO, but it’s not impossible that this is also referencing what Trump is doing with his recent acquisition group. Could the IP addresses that left the DoD 3 minutes before the end of Trump’s term have anything to do with the communications infrastructure?
This set up for seamless transition is exactly what was described in the FMR EO through the established subordinate bodies and working groups used to support the FMR Executive Committee,
Lines of Effort
The three lines of effort focused on the Federal executive branch mentioned in this next section are fairly self-explanatory, but I need to stress that going through this strategy in its entirety is time well-spent. I will only be commenting on a few aspects, but the entire document is incredibly relevant.
This is important. I mentioned the picture that was starting to form and this very clearly outlines it for us. The devolution plan that we are currently experiencing has multiple nodes with senior officials retaining responsibility for assuming risk in executing their essential functions. Do you see where I’m going with this yet?
Here we have more discussion of distributed assets and using technological advancements to enable governance in a distributed environment. This also mentions exercising the transfer of leadership roles and responsibilities without relocating personnel. All of this is pointing to devolution.
Again: discussing the distributed environment and apportioning authority and responsibility among multiple stakeholders through geographic diversity.
The Strategy outlines the context, planning model, and steps necessary to ensure the resilience of the Federal executive branch. It includes:
Re-prioritization of essential functions.
Increasing possible nodes available to perform those re-prioritized essential functions.
Mentions throughout the distributed environment of operations across geographic areas.
The FMR EO and the Strategy paint a clear picture of devolution. A plan to create an Executive Committee of senior level officials and subordinate bodies or working groups that would be proactively ready to take on the authority and responsibility of performing the re-prioritized essential functions required to preserve our American way of life.
Executing the Plan
The Distributed Environment
Now that we have gone through the FMR EO and the Strategy, I’d like to once again revisit the Executive Committee established by Executive Order 13961: Governance and Integration of Federal Mission Resilience and see if we can make any connections.
Recall the quote I told you to remember from Trump’s introduction:
“The government and private sector must work together to reduce vulnerabilities and design infrastructure that addresses preparedness and resilience from the start.”
It’s time to look at the members of the Executive Committee and see what they are up to now in the “private sector”?
Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations: Tony Ornato
Tony Ornato has an interesting story. He went from working for the Secret Service, to working as Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. After Joe Biden was inaugurated, Ornato went back to the Secret Service serving as the assistant Director, a prestigious role. The Biden administration had concerns:
It’s very interesting that somebody from the FMR Executive Committee is now embedded withing the United States Secret Service in a very prominent role.
Director of the Office of Management and Budget: Russell Vought
After leaving office in on January 20th, 2021, Russell went on to found the Center for Renewing America. The CRA focuses on the following issues:
The CRA has multiple former Trump administration officials from various agencies. My personal favorite team member of the CRA:
(Reminder: I am not Kash Patel. I am just a big fan and he is my pseudo-namesake)
The CRA is essentially continuing the work of implementing Donald Trump’s policy and agenda in some of the most key areas.
Secretary of Homeland Security: Chad Wolf
On March 23, it was reported by MSN that in addition to joining the America First Policy Institute, Chad Wolf would be launching Wolf Global Advisors.
The website is virtually dormant and there is hardly any news about anything they are actually doing. Wolf Global advisors could be considered as a small-scale Department of Homeland Security.
Secretary of Homeland Security: Chad Wolf &
Director of National Intelligence: John Ratcliffe
Both Chad Wolf & John Ratcliffe went on to join the America First Policy Institute.
The America First Policy Institute was formed not long after the stolen election on 11/20/2020 by Brooke Rollins. Brooke is the former Director of the Domestic Policy Council and Chief Strategist at the White House under Donald Trump. There are a ton of names associated with this organization and everything single name is pro-Trump. If you click through each name on the list, you will notice something. Of the 72 individuals who are listed as part of the America Fist Policy Institute team, only 12 did not work for Trump at some point. 60 of the individuals actually worked for Trump in some capacity in the last 4 years.
Some were tapped by Trump for his 2016 election, some for the 1776 commission, some on his re-election campaign, but a majority served in his during his actual Presidency in his administration. Here is what The Hill said about the group:
The America First Policy Institute is essentially continuing the work of implementing Donald Trump’s policy and agenda. They fill in a lot of key areas that the Center for Renewing America isn’t focusing on. Here you can see their “Areas of Interest” as described on their website:
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) - Also known as National Security Advisor: Robert O’Brien
On January 21st, 2021, Robert O’Brien co-founded American Global Strategies LLC. This organization is another organization that seems almost dormant. There is hardly any news on them and the website doesn’t have much to it. This is what they claim to do and who is on their team:
Secretary of Defense: Christopher Miller
Sometime after leaving office on January 20th, Christopher Miller co-founded an organization that goes by the name of Boundary Channel Partners (BCP). BCP is virtually dormant with no news about them anywhere. All searches lead back to the website. So what is this group actually doing? This is what they claim to provide for their services:
What is most interesting is who else is part of the BCP team alongside Christopher Miller:
Every single member (except for Ms. Barbara Hayley) of this seemingly dormant organization has prior experience working in Trump’s administration in some very important roles, including a few key names already known to the devolution story (Miller and Tata). This group might even be considered a small-scale version of Trump’s Department of Defense.
Conclusion
Look at the Executive Order and the Strategy we covered in this article and add it to the rest of the circumstantial evidence presented throughout Devolution Series. Consider everything you know about Donald Trump himself. Add in the utter dysfunction of Biden and his administration.
Devolution can no longer be considered just another theory.
We can now see the full picture starting to come into focus. On December 7th, 2020, Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13961: Governance and Integration of Federal Mission Resilience and Federal Mission Resilience Strategy and set his plan in motion. We can now point to the exact group of people who were responsible for “implementing and executing” that plan.
Everybody responsible for implementing and executing devolution has gone on to either form or join organizations that closely align with what the Trump administration was doing during his first term in office. There are simply too many coincidences to ignore.
Have you noticed that Trump is becoming more relevant and is putting himself even further into the spotlight? The MAGA movement is only growing and there is nothing stopping it. We the people are taking out country back from the grassroots level as we should be. We are doing our part. Trump has already done his.
It’s no longer a question of if devolution is real, but rather when and how it is revealed.
THE BEST IS YET TO COME!
Patel Patriot